The papyrus fragment 7Q5 has caused a polemic based on the fact
that it has few recognisable letters, even fewer words, and a generally
cloudy history. The polemic started when J. O'Callagban identified
7Q5 as Mark 65-53 in 1972, and has remained tenacious in his
proclamation of the certainty of his identification since he first published
it.' He and his follower C.P. Thiede often move the debate to
joumals and reviews where the severe and rigorous objections of serious
scholars do not appear. Lately, on the Internet, 1 came across an
interview with O'Callaghan by G. Mckenzie Gonzálea,in which
O'Callaghan's personable and open expressiveness certainly did not
hide his authoritarian arguments. He explains the history of the identification
of 7Q5 with Mark 652-53, stsessing the honesty and papyrological
rigor observed by him throughout the process, and showing
more eagerness to succeed in his thesis than the scientific interest
needed to gain a valid conclusion.